D&D (2024) Does anyone else think that 1D&D will create a significant divide in the community?

[Bacon Bits]

And that's what you would advertise? "These new books are more homogenous, balanced, and streamlined! Please replace your current books with them"? How exactly is that an enticing sales pitch?

I'm pretty sure that's exactly how they billed 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e, and 5e.

And while they'd use words like "improved," "redesigned," or "revised" instead of more ambiguous terms like "homogenized," I definitely recall them billing literally every new edition as more balanced and streamlined. Even when it was anything but.

 

[gamerprinter]

I don't claim that WotC is being logical, but my point is just a thought... there are better ways of doing it, but...

I also don't know what the characters and plot of the television series, which might have no connection to the characters and plot of the movie.
If they're different, then movie IP specific content might not be the best. Since D&D is played with a million possible stories, and not just one story.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

And that's what you would advertise? "These new books are more homogenous, balanced, and streamlined! Please replace your current books with them"? How exactly is that an enticing sales pitch?

I think the real sales pitch for 5.5 is a quiet threat of "buy in, or be left behind by the zeitgeist". It was a pretty effective pitch for some of us, but highly dependent on the perceived inevitability of OneD&D imminently dominating the hobby and the D&D cultural scene.

Post OGL-debacle they probably need a better pitch. Certainly if they want to retain my business they'll need to give me a better reason now.

 

[Captain Panda]

I think the real sales pitch for 5.5 is a quiet threat of "buy in, or be left behind by the zeitgeist". It was a pretty effective pitch for some of us, but highly dependent on the perceived inevitability of OneD&D imminently dominating the hobby and the D&D cultural scene.

Post OGL-debacle they probably need a better pitch. Certainly if they want to retain my business they'll need to give me a better reason now.

OneD&D is exciting none of my current players in my West March. None of us are currently inclined to make a switch. That isn't because we have some hate for One D&D, and even the OGL thing isn't why. The OGL debacle didn't help, admittedly, but we were skeptical already. They are actively making the game worse for a lot of popular classes, it seems to me. Druids are the latest victim, but not the only one. Rogues and Bards have also been shanked in a very unfortunate way.

 

[Iosue]

On the original question of whether 1D&D will create a significant divide, when I started playing, there was already a divide: D&D and AD&D. And then there was D&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2nd Ed. However, this was not really a problem, because while they games were all distinct (probably even more distinct than 1D&D will be from 5e), they were largely the same game. We all spoke the same language, as it were, and content from one version of the game could be pretty easily used with another. There was continuity.

After WotC took over, they spent the next 14 years pursuing a strategy of reinventing the game in order to chase new players. There was no continuity at all, let alone rough compatibility. Those who did want to get onboard with the latest edition were left in the cold.

In as much as 1D&D will create a divide, I think it will look more like the TSR-era. Some people may not make the jump to the newest version of the rules, but there will enough continuity that they won't be left entirely in the cold. New players will mine old 5e stuff for the 1D&D games, and vice-versa. Internally, you'll have your 1D&Ders, your 5e'ers, your Level Uppers, your Black Flaggers, but functionally, we'll be united as one big 5e community.

 

[FrogReaver]

And that's what you would advertise? "These new books are more homogenous, balanced, and streamlined! Please replace your current books with them"? How exactly is that an enticing sales pitch?

I find balance to be good but not very exciting (other than in pvp games where an underpowered option I liked now becomes viable if not good).

In many ways I think their mantra of backward compatability is working against them.

 

[Cruentus]

And that's what you would advertise? "These new books are more homogenous, balanced, and streamlined! Please replace your current books with them"? How exactly is that an enticing sales pitch?

I don't think they have to advertise anything, really. All they have to do is release "NEW" PHB, DMG, and MM, and people will buy it. Its been 10 or so years since 5e came out. Many people, including new players, will happily take a flyer on the new books, just to see what is going on. And if they don't like it, they'll carry on with the old books. Either way, its a win for WOTC. WOTC may also be banking on some of that completionist gene that some of us have, where people need to buy the new stuff!

Now, that being said, I gave up on WOTC a year or two ago after playing and DMing 5e for a couple of years, its just not engaging for me, and the direction they're going is less so. I'll stick with B/X and OSE, and some non d20 systems for my gaming, and watch the rest with popcorn in hand.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

This was you, wasn't it?

It is, but that isn't me saying everyone is wandering around with a pregened character looking for a table... it is me showing that (In my experence) people were not mix and matching.

This is still you treating playing D&D like being a ronin, wandering the land with your tattered previous edition PHB.

no I am not... I'm sorry that you think ANYONE can claim to have been to every home game ever at every table, but that is a CRAZY thing to expect... again, we see people playing, we hear about peoples games (In fact there are joke shirts that say "no I don't want to hear about your character" becuase at cons and store we OFTEN find ourselves talking about our home games... )

I think this is dissolving into some sort of weird semantic argument now, so you win, OK?

For everyone else, I think perusing the historical record is informative.

and those historical records show that people either stayed with 3.0 (although of all editions that is the one I saw the left behinds the least) or moved to 3.5... not that tables where letting players choose what PHB to use.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So I honestly expect someone with a 2014 book either playing by the rules set upon the table or playing their own game. They won't come online just lamenting about more options.

that's the thing... the table will pick 2014 or 2024... that choice is all I am talking about.

Some might say 2014, BUT we will use the new 2024 exhaustion rule, or visa versa... most will also have atleast a few house rules not in either...

Heck I take things (and have seen plenty of others do so too) from other D20 and even non d20 games... but those are house rules over the base book we agree on to play with.

my test (and maybe this is why I disagree with so many on here on this topic) is if my default assumption is the two books go together and teh DM has to rule that out, or if the default is the books DON'T go together and the DM would have to peicemeal bring some of it in with modifications.
If tomorrow someone said "Hey lets play a 4e D&D game" and me and my fiancé were both playing and I said I wanted to do a tacticle warlord with some martial power 1 and some skill powers from a later PHB but she wanted to be a slayer fighter with a bow... my assumtion is (baring the DM having any house rules not mentioned yet) we could both play them as written.

If tomorrow someone said "Hey lets play 3.5 D&D" and I wanted to play a warblade from ToB and she wanted to play a sorcerer with the 3.0 haste I would assume not only would that be a no, but it would require a house rule TO let it in. my assumption would be we use 3.0 OR 3.5...if there was some combation it would require a case by case rule by rule "this 1 from this and that one from that" not "just bring what ever phb you want...

come 2024 my bet is that it will be closer to the 3/3.5. Heck, way back in the 90's I was playing 2e and my buddy had started in 1e... he homebrewed a monk class twice that was pretty much a slightly moded (two diffrent sets of mods) to the 1e class... no one assumed that meant 1e books were aloowed in

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And that's what you would advertise? "These new books are more homogenous, balanced, and streamlined! Please replace your current books with them"? How exactly is that an enticing sales pitch?

if it was true... if I could take the 2024 book the way I did the 2008 one and say "this is awesome the fighter and the wizard are on equal terms for choice and flexibility" then those words would sell me in a second